[ron3d]

I'm sure this topic has come up here before, and it will always be an issue because of the internet. But, before you dismiss everything by simply saying that you play it safe, take your own stock photos (or buy them), never make derivatives of other art/designs etc., always gain permission before you use a music track, etc. let me simply ask this, is anyone surprised about Youtube? I mean, any Tom, Dick, or Larry can post a copyrighted news cast, or a copyrighted music track, or copyrighted images, television shows, video games, logos, cartoon characters, art pieces, and so on seemingly at will and without consequence.

People routinely post copyrighted music tracks and images on their Myspace pages and blogs. Some of these sites are creating advertising revenue for the owners, so in a sense, they are making money off of copyrighted material.

I remember the witch hunt that happened against Napster (remember when Metallica got so pissed?) Yet it's not like they stopped torrents or the like. My point is, why do artists always have to stress over these things? Why must we adhere to a strict code when it comes to copyright material, when the general public breaks it all of the time?

[2Dfruit]

Because it's professional.

Let the myspace/youtubers infringe on copyright all they want...

[cjgraphix]

Because we do this for a living and should know better.

[ron3d]

Originally Posted by 2Dfruit

Because it's professional.

Let the myspace/youtubers infringe on copyright all they want...

Fair enough.

But before you go belittling the myspace/youtube crowd, let me remind you that they often gain alot more views than alot of "professional" artists do. For example, a Youtube video might intrigue CNN or MSNBC news to cover it as a story, thus boosting its viewership. Some myspacers/youtubers have spun their own television shows and musical careers out of it. (Tila Tequila and Chris Crocker come to mind).

Real professional artists who work hard on putting on a show won't get half the exposure of some guy with a pirated copy of Premiere, making a clever spoof of the MTV awards or US Presidential elections and posting it on Youtube. Those efforts can bring in ad revenue and possibly gain connections. Because at the end of the day, it's just about money and popularity.

I'll end by bringing up this "Obama girl" who gained over 8 million views. Now look where she's at:

YouTube - Obama Girl: My Fox.

[xENo]

Obama girl is original material... how does that back anything you're saying?

The guys "getting all the views" are not the people who uploaded pirated content, it's the people who created the shows. If they were not already well known segments, then the clips wouldnt be getting the exposure. Half the time they're ripped and uploaded *because* they're well known and have fans. It really does nothing for the person who uploaded the clip, unless they created the content.

[ron3d]

Originally Posted by xENo

Obama girl is original material... how does that back anything you're saying?

The guys "getting all the views" are not the people who uploaded pirated content, it's the people who created the shows. If they were not already well known segments, then the clips wouldnt be getting the exposure. Half the time they're ripped and uploaded *because* they're well known and have fans. It really does nothing for the person who uploaded the clip, unless they created the content.

The original Obama girl video featured many copyrighted pictures of Obama, including one of him in a bathing suit that is owned by Fame Pictures. They also included footage of his 2004 speech, and some of those shots are copyrighted. The filmmakers who shot Obama girl videos have made a collection of many more videos, using lots of copyrighted news footage, images, and soundbites. So while the overall idea might bave been original, it is low budget and utilizes lots of copyrighted material.

But none of that matters of course, because the major news media gives them positive coverage on their networks, thus making them even more popular.

[Bill Posters]

I'm not familiar with the Obama Girl material.
Is it possible that it could be defended as parody, reporting or commentary?
If so, then the use of copyrighted material may have been legal under the terms of 'fair use'.

In the case of parody, the 'commentary' doesn't need to be directed towards the copyrighted work itself.
(Note that parody is not a use protected under 'fair dealing' in the UK. Fair Dealing is the comparable set of conditions to those defined under Fair Use in the US - with some exceptions.)

Oddly, in the US, the 'newsworthiness' of a newly created, infringeing work can sometimes be used to mount a successful 'fair use' defense.

[hawken]

Most of this is fair use.

news and tv etc uploaded to youtube is just a repeat of what people saw on tv, it's more of a service than anything else - the station gets their logo or name or whatever broadcast for free, they already got their monies and this is free publicity -- even if it's negative.

truth is the existing revenue model works. When applied to the internet it falls on it's arse. Simply they cannot control something they don't understand. Sure studios and artists freaked out a few years back, who wouldn't? Now they are very accepting, and new revenue models are being brought in.

Like artist tax on the ipod. It already exists on CD players and DVD players.
YouTube has done numerous revenue deals, so they don't have to shut the site down.

[pgo]

Fair use and free advertising. Copyright holders are perfectly free to request things be taken offline - and YouTube or MySpace will comply. That's how things work.

Like hawken said, all these big social sites have deals with studios and such. Most of what you see on MySpace is licensed to be there because studios/labels/etc have realized that they'll make a shit ton more money by working with technology instead of against it.

[ron3d]

I don't want to beat this thing to death, but I just thought about something. There are internet sites featuring mainstream cartoon characters (The Simpsons, Family Guy, Super Mario, etc) engaging in sexual acts. They are porn sites that charge monthly subscription fees for this material. Yet, Nintendo has not come after them, nor has FOX entertainment or Seth MacFarlane, though I can pretty much guarantee you that they aren't sharing in the profits, and the argument could be made that these sites are damaging their brand (especially in the case of Super Mario).

I'm not trying to suggest that artists begin using copyrighted material or anything. I'm simply shining light on a glaring double standard and acknowledging that the boundaries imposed on professional artists do not exist for the rest of the public.

[hawken]

Exposing your favorite websites there would create a PR backfire for those companies. Raising something out of obscurity into the public eye.